What's the criticism, exactly? The idea is tired or the execution sucks?

I don't know. While it may not be great photography, isn't everything tired? And hasn't it always been? How about flowers are tired? How about lith is tired? How about all that wet plate crap is tired? How about all the boring HCB rip off snapshot images are tired? Exhausted, actually. Waterfalls, portraiture, trees, red filter skies, cliffs, silos, bridges, star trails, Vivian Maier and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong about slice-of-life pictures. This is just another anti-digital thread.

I didn't express myself very clearly. I really should have said I 'think' that this is terrible photography...

Most things have been tried, but if you don't apply yourself and try to make something a little bit more thought through, then what's the point? It isn't the fact that somebody took pictures for 24 hours in an amazing city that irks me. It's the fact that they came up with something fairly mediocre, so what did they really accomplish? Sleep deprivation? Added an impressive number of exposures to the exposure counter?
If you can help me understand it, I will be very grateful. Because I don't see the point, (and that may well make me the schmuck I realize).

"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

What's the criticism, exactly? The idea is tired or the execution sucks?

I don't know. While it may not be great photography, isn't everything tired? And hasn't it always been? How about flowers are tired? How about lith is tired? How about all that wet plate crap is tired? How about all the boring HCB rip off snapshot images are tired? Exhausted, actually. Waterfalls, portraiture, trees, red filter skies, cliffs, silos, bridges, star trails, Vivian Maier and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong about slice-of-life pictures. This is just another anti-digital thread.

Yes, Michael, indeed..and maybe it always was. Again, the difference now is that everyone is constantly bombarded with it. In the past, you had to buy a book, or better yet, prints, to appreciate someone's work...or not. Now it's all out there and for free. What's special? Well, I guess it's up to someone to find something special, as in the end this is all very subjective. For me, it's not digital vs film, because again, there was always crap even on film. The internet simply made it all a lot easier to find it and view it, so our views may be a little skewed.

What's the criticism, exactly? The idea is tired or the execution sucks?

I don't know. While it may not be great photography, isn't everything tired? And hasn't it always been? How about flowers are tired? How about lith is tired? How about all that wet plate crap is tired? How about all the boring HCB rip off snapshot images are tired? Exhausted, actually. Waterfalls, portraiture, trees, red filter skies, cliffs, silos, bridges, star trails, Vivian Maier and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong about slice-of-life pictures. This is just another anti-digital thread.

...on a separate not, considering what you just wrote, might as well all hang it up then. Have you?

Don't get me wrong I don't think the work was very good. My problem would be more with an argument the "genre" is tired. It probably is, but I guess my point is when I see a photograph I like, I just plain like it. It can be any genre I suppose (although I naturally gravitate to some things more than others). It doesn't matter if it breaks new ground or is a genre/style/process that has been done to death.

I seem to increasingly find myself in support of "simple" photographs that are at best ok, at worst junk. A complicated, unpopular topic for another thread perhaps.

Max, no I haven't given up at all. I just don't like classifications of any particular genre or style as good/bad, relevant/irrelevant, tired/fresh, whatever.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the work was very good. My problem would be more with an argument the "genre" is tired. It probably is, but I guess my point is when I see a photograph I like, I just plain like it. It can be any genre I suppose (although I naturally gravitate to some things more than others). It doesn't matter if it breaks new ground or is a genre/style/process that has been done to death.

I seem to increasingly find myself in support of photographs that are at best ok, at worst junk. A complicated, unpopular topic for another thread perhaps.

I hear you, Michael. But what is the "genre" anyway? Can it really be boxed in or categorized as a "genre"? For me, it's simply junk photography. I'm not even analyzing it within the realm of a "genre". These days everyone is a "street photographer" (God I hate that term). So, is the "genre" tired? No, I think WE are. it's like with music. I never get tired of listening to The Beatles, EVER. And, I can appreciate others who have used them as inspiration, if the music is good. Just like with photography, I can appreciate the hard work of those who pay attention to composition, geometry, light, subject, context, regardless of the fact that HCB, Winogrand, Eisenstadt, already said it all. It's harder to find a unique trait these days because everything has indeed been said and done, but that should not preclude us from appreciating good art, no matter what it is.